True Liberty Requires Submission.

[Aupmanyav]

You submit to learn but you have to validate to master.

Master? And slaves? One can certainly differ from his/her teachers.
Sage Yajnavalkya differed from his teacher, Sage Vaishampayana. Vaishampayana asked Yajnavalkya to return his teaching. Yajnavalkya, as the story goes, vomited Vaishampayana's teaching. He went on to write Shukla (White) Yajurveda. The other pupils of Vaishampayana took the form of partridges (Tittari) and and ate what Yajnavalkya vomited. Their book is known as Krishna (Black) Yajurveda.
They also wrote the books Taittiriya Brahman, Taittariya Aranyaka, Taittiriya Upanishad, important scriptures of Hinduism.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Freedom to do as one pleases isn't good at all if the heart ain't right, peaceful, and honorable.

Each generation is faced with a choice to build on the successes of past generations, or do their own thing. At this time people are testing morality to the utmost. We've never had so much liberty as we do now. This liberty we have now is decadent. People don't seem to want families as much as before. When people are lax with their morals, then the worst people are emboldened to take power.

Decadence is probably the fastest way to lose liberty. Authoritarians seize the opportunity to take power and control when people are lax.

If people are not honorable then it's tougher to find a suitable mate, and the family system erodes. Genuine liberty is moral and supports a family structure.

The nature of reality is such a circumstance that they'll never be total, absolute freedom. A person has to choose carefully what kind of freedom is acceptable, worthwhile, and indispensable.

Insatiable desire, will over time destroy liberty.

I'm far from convinced that humanity as a whole can ever rule their passions, and lusts. Everyone talks about equality, and liberty, but really it's about power and control. A just power vs. corrupt power.

Humans are from the animal world. So liberty has to take into account the animal nature. The civil nature is more a dream of the oppressed, and those who appreciate what it's like to not have, or be under tyranny.

The American Constitution was designed specifically to limit corrupt power.

Humanity has to prove that it has the potential to be civil, and defend that civility. That's always a fight with the animal nature.

There are many good points on your post.

Not sure if you see it the same way, but to me it is Materialism that feeds the animal nature and thus helps erode the boundaries of a healthy liberty. Liberty has to balance extreme poverty and extreme wealth.

Thus we will always get back to the fact that Liberty also needs to be founded on a strong set of Virtues and morals, as you have suggested.

I see the issue will be, where do we source the required standard?

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

I submit only to the law of my country, otherwise I hate this word - Submission, no back-bone.

Maybe we can look at it from a Hindu perspective.

Is not the goal of many Hindu a path of self liberation? Thus that path must contain a high level of submission to one's own desires, does it not?

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

I agree that "true liberty" has to be gained through collective equanimity, and that it cannot be gained via the subjugation of others. And the reason I say this is because even the subjugation of others is a form of dependency. And dependency is not freedom.

We humans will always be somewhat dependent upon each other, as that is the nature of the human species. But we can choose to share that dependency equitably, and thereby lessen the burden of it to the greatest degree for all.

Yes indeed, I do see that a true liberty will not be found, until we learn to consider all humanity. Our diversity also needs to be considered in finding a balance.

Oneness does not have to mean sameness, just like every snowflake is not the same, have fun with this one.

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Master? And slaves? One can certainly differ from his/her teachers.
Sage Yajnavalkya differed from his teacher, Sage Vaishampayana. Vaishampayana asked Yajnavalkya to return his teaching. Yajnavalkya, as the story goes, vomited Vaishampayana's teaching. He went on to write Shukla (White) Yajurveda. The other pupils of Vaishampayana took the form of partridges and and ate what Yajnavalkya vomited. There book is known as Krishna (Black) Yajurveda.
They also wrote the books Taittiriya Brahman, Taittariya Aranyaka, Taittiriya Upanishad, important scriptures of Hinduism.

That was very interesting to me, it gives me a picture of how the Hindu traditions unfolded.

Regards Tony

 

[Aupmanyav]

Is not the goal of many Hindu a path of self liberation? Thus that path must contain a high level of submission to one's own desires, does it not?

No. You can do whatever you think is good for you. Just don't violate the law of the country. One can curtail his/her desires or may not do it is a personal choice. One does what one thinks is best for him/her. Of course, there are suggestions galore.

Murder, rape, robbery, or suicide are crimes. Law will punish one for it. Adultery or homosexuality are not crimes, though adultery is a valid reason for divorce. If one thinks being vegetarian is good for him/her, they can be vegetarians. If they do not think that way, they can certainly be non-vegetarians. You may enjoy alcohol if you think that is OK for you. Sale of psychedelic drugs, except for Marijuana drinks (bhang), is prohibited in India, though possession in small quantities for personal use is not. So, basically follow the law of your country.

Religions and their various sects may say whatever they want, and people who go by them can certainly follow the rules of their religion or sect. For example, Vaishnavas may want one to be vegetarian, there may not be any such restriction for Shaivas or Shaktas.

 

[Aupmanyav]

That was very interesting to me, it gives me a picture of how the Hindu traditions unfolded.

That is right. I consider Buddha and Sankara to be my gurus, but I differ from both of them about some things.

 

[Aupmanyav]

I see the issue will be, where do we source the required standard?

There is no source. We create our own standards, for example, monogamy. Some people differ.

 

[blü 2]

This post is founded on my understanding of these passage found in the Baha'i Writings.

"True liberty consisteth in man's submission unto My commandments, little as ye know it." Bahá’u’lláh, Gleanings from the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 335

It is obvious that humanity at the current time will not choose this option, so the important thing to note in this OP is that this in not directed at the Baha'i Faith, but at a conversation as to what is a productive and useful "Liberty".

It is observable that humanity already uses submission as a tool in liberated societies, as there needs to be a basic structure of law that gives boundaries to Liberty, as Liberty is also a path to destruction.

This is thought on this other aspect of liberty.

"Liberty must, in the end, lead to sedition, whose flames none can quench. Thus warneth you He Who is the Reckoner, the All-Knowing." Bahá’u’lláh, Gleanings from the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 335-336

We can see evidence of this in the world news.

This link is to other quotes on both freedom and liberty.

Freedom | Bahá’í Quotes

Your Thoughts?

Regards Tony

"True liberty" equates readily with anarchy and narcissism.

If we qualify it by including an obligation to act decently and considerately and inclusively towards others, it's not true liberty, but something rather better.

 

[Pudding]

This post is founded on my understanding of these passage found in the Baha'i Writings.

"True liberty consisteth in man's submission unto My commandments, little as ye know it." Bahá’u’lláh, Gleanings from the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 335

It is obvious that humanity at the current time will not choose this option, so the important thing to note in this OP is that this in not directed at the Baha'i Faith, but at a conversation as to what is a productive and useful "Liberty".

It is observable that humanity already uses submission as a tool in liberated societies, as there needs to be a basic structure of law that gives boundaries to Liberty, as Liberty is also a path to destruction.

This is thought on this other aspect of liberty.

"Liberty must, in the end, lead to sedition, whose flames none can quench. Thus warneth you He Who is the Reckoner, the All-Knowing." Bahá’u’lláh, Gleanings from the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 335-336

We can see evidence of this in the world news.

This link is to other quotes on both freedom and liberty.

Freedom | Bahá’í Quotes

Your Thoughts?

Regards Tony

Liberty without limit is a path to destruction of society. E.g. liberty to murder, steal, rape, slavery, misogyny, racism, genocide...etc, these kind of liberties can lead to destruction. E.g. liberty to pollute/abuse Earth which leads to extreme climate change, this kind of liberty can lead to some or all of the Earth be rendered uninhabitable as a result of extreme temperatures, severe weather events, an inability to grow crops, and an altered composition of the Earth's atmosphere.

Liberty with an appropriate limit is the way to go. To some extent, different people have different opinion about what is appropriate/inappropriate limit.

How do people behave when conflict about this limit happens? Either using violence or debate peacefully using logically good reason supported by good objective evidence if it's possible. Or they can leave each other alone, e.g. people group A live in place A, group B live in place B, they can practice whatever version of liberty as they like in their own place and limit their own version of liberty to their own place, and stop harassing each other. Or they can fight until one side win or both side death or they learn to cooperate with each other so they don't need to die or suffer painfully.

In a same place. A group of specific people want to enjoy the liberty of murder, steal, rape, slavery, misogyny, racism and/or genocide...etc? Another group of specific people want to enjoy the liberty to not being murder/steal/rape/enslave, not be misogyny upon, not be racism upon and/or not be genocide upon...etc? The numbers of people in this two group is equal. Both of them don't want to leave this place. What'll happen next?

Extremist group C who want everyone to obey whatever they say a specific book/people D say a god say everyone must obey?
Extremist group E who want everyone to obey whatever they say a specific book/people F say a god say everyone must obey?
Extremist group G/H/I...etc who want everyone to obey whatever they say a specific book/people J/K/L...etc say a god say everyone must obey?
What'll happen next? Look at history.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Liberty with an appropriate limit is the way to go. To some extent, different people have different opinion about what is appropriate/inappropriate limit.

That is what this OP is exploring.

How do we come to an agreement of the boundaries of Liberty?

History may indicate we need God to guide us. History also may indicate, that after God does guide us, it takes time for change to happen!

Regards Tony

 

[Revoltingest]

Jumping in unbidden (unwanted?).....

How do we come to an agreement of the boundaries of Liberty?

It's all political compromise.

History may indicate we need God to guide us. History also may indicate, that after God does guide us, it takes time for change to happen!

I don't see God weighing in during any session of
Congress, Parliament, or Duma. So it's up to us
humans to hammer things out.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Your Thoughts?

The first thing that came to mind reading that was George Orwell:

War is peace.
Freedom is slavery.
Ignorance is strength.